Methane is unstable and breaks down quickly in the atmosphere, and even if it doubled would have essentially no impact on the greenhouse effect. In the tropics, the effect would be an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of about 0.04%.
If everyone in Kansas City was an atmospheric molecule, only one of them would be methane. Anyone working on climate models and doesn’t know this, is driving under the influence of AGW stupidity.
Bill Illis posted a table from RealFakeClimate showing Hansen’s scenario A/B/C assumptions. What was inside was just about what I should have expected from Homer.
He is off by three orders of magnitude in his CFC numbers
The table is parts per million, but the CFC numbers are at least three orders of magnitude too high. CFC11 should be 0.00025 PPM, not 0.52
File:AYool CFC-11 history.png – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If everyone on the planet was a molecule of air, less than two people would be CFC11 molecules. CFC’s play essentially no role in the greenhouse effect, as radiative transfer models show. A 1 ppm change in CO2 is 4,000 times more molecules than a doubling of CFC11.
Hansen is completely incompetent, and apparently has been for his entire career.
h/t to Andy Oz
James Hansen’s research shows that a mini-runaway, pushing global temperatures to 10-12 degrees C above the Holocene, is all but certain under continuous, business as usual, fossil fuel burning through 2100.
Alarmists and lukewarmers like Will Nitschke tell us that we are not on Hansen’s BAU track, yet Hansen keeps saying that we are on BAU. Why are they arguing with the world’s greatest climatologist?
sea level rise of many meters should be anticipated with the global warming of at least several degrees Celsius that is expected under business-as-usual (BAU) climate scenarios
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf
Jan 22-feb 5 could be one of coldest periods plains east in last 50 years, if not longer
Superbowl is February 2, outdoors at Chris Christie’s “I Shouldn’t Have Listened To Al Gore” Stadium
Hansen’s 1988 definition, which has been deleted from the GISS website and blocked from the web archive
Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.
So what has actually happened since 1988? Definitely not scenario C. Definitely not scenario B.
Hansen referred to Scenario A as the Business As Usual scenario.
It astonishes me that people are still trying to play the scenario B shell game.
Hansen’s 1988 BAU forecast for scenario A was a complete disaster. They weren’t even in the ballpark.
This is what Dana shows in his 100% fraudulent graph. Nothing about this graph resembles reality.
